15 May 2026
The Council of Europe Chişinău Declaration on migration and human rights: what is it, what could its adoption mean, and what comes next?
This morning, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers adopted its Chişinău Declaration following months of negotiations. The Declaration is a non-binding document expressing the views and concerns of member State governments on migration and human rights protection in Europe, in particular relating to the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) system. ENNHRI and its members have engaged extensively in the Declaration’s development. Now, to inform the ongoing debate on the Chişinău Declaration and the key issues it addresses, ENNHRI has prepared a new Q&A.
Read below to find out more on the background to the Chişinău Declaration; its likely impact on the rights of migrants; how it may affect the work of the European Court of Human Rights and national courts; and what happens next.
What is the Declaration and what is its importance?
- The Chișinău Declaration was issued by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on 15 May 2026, at the Committee of Minsters’ 135th
- It is a non-binding Declaration expressing the views and concerns of Member State governments on migration and human rights protection in Europe, in particular relating to the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) system
- The Declaration arises from concerns expressed by a group of nine European states in an open letter of 9 May 2025, that European human rights standards were inhibiting some aspects of effective migration control. The letter called for “a new and open-minded conversation about interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights” relating to migration.
- At the initiative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the discussion was brought within the Council of Europe framework at an Informal Ministerial Conference convened in December 2025.
- A group of 27 states, in a joint statement to the Conference, called for further discussion on how to address migration challenges within the Convention system.
- The Informal Ministerial Conference secured agreement to work towards a Declaration on Migration and Human Rights within the Council of Europe and invited the Committee of Ministers to prepare a draft of the Declaration.
- The Declaration is the result of several months of negotiation and compromise between governments of all Council of Europe Member States.
- Discussions began within the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH), which set up a special expert committee (CDDH-EXTRA) to prepare draft elements of the Declaration for consideration by the Committee of Ministers.
- The CDDH-EXTRA Committee was made up of representatives of Council of Europe Member States. Observers from Council of Europe institutions and civil society, as well as ENNHRI, also participated in the discussions and made proposals for amendments to the draft Declaration.
- The CDDH-EXTRA Committee held three meetings between January and March 2026 in which it prepared and agreed “draft elements” of a Declaration, which were published in March 2026.
- These draft elements were then reviewed at a political level in informal meetings of the Committee of Ministers.
- The final text of the Chișinău Declaration was agreed by the Committee of Ministers at a formal meeting in Chișinău on 15 May 2026.
- The Declaration begins by affirming the Member States’ commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights, their responsibility to protect the Convention rights of all within their jurisdiction, and Member States’ support for the independence of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court). It sets out some of the key principles of the Convention system and amongst other points, acknowledges the power of the Court to interpret the Convention. The Declaration then addresses specific migration issues identified by the Member States as being of particular concern in Europe. These are:
- The application of the prohibition on torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3 ECHR) in expulsions and extraditions;
- The application of the right to family life (Article 8 ECHR) in cases of expulsion or extradition of non-nationals convicted or suspected of serious crimes;
- “Mass arrivals” of large numbers of migrants in Council of Europe Member States;
- Instrumentalisation of migration by “hostile” states or other actors;
- Decision-making processes in migration and asylum;
- Co-operation with non-Council of Europe States in migration management, including by establishing “return hubs”;
- Enhancing communication and dialogue on the Convention system, in particular relating to migration.
- ENNHRI, as well as human rights NGOs and other experts, raised concerns (see ENNHRI statements here, here and here) throughout the process, including that the Declaration could:
- Undermine the protection of the Convention rights of migrants as established in the Court’s caselaw, and the principle that human rights apply to all (universality);
- Threaten the independence of the European Court of Human Rights, by directing the Court as to how it should interpret or apply the Convention;
- Threaten the independence of national courts, by directing them as to how they should interpret or apply the Convention;
- Weaken the Convention system more broadly, by prioritising considerations of security and public policy over the protection of human rights.
- To inform the discussions, the Council of Europe Division on Migration and Refugees has also issued a Frequently Asked Questions document explaining how the European Convention on Human Rights applies to migration-related issues.
- Although the final Declaration is an improvement on earlier proposals and affirms crucial principles including the independence of the Court and the absolute nature of the prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment, some elements raise concerns as to how the Declaration will be applied in practice, as set out in more detail below.
What could the Declaration mean for rights and legal protections?
- The Declaration has no direct legal effect in national or international law.
- It does not amend the Convention or any other legal instrument.
- It is an expression of the views of Member States agreed within the Committee of Ministers, and as such may be taken into account in the interpretation of the Convention, including by the Court or by national courts, but this does not mean that its influence is decisive.
- Under the Convention, the European Court of Human Rights has authority to interpret the Convention (Articles 19 and 32 ECHR).
- National courts are free to adopt different interpretations of the Convention rights than those described in the Declaration, taking into account the caselaw of the Court. The Convention provides a common minimum standard across the Council of Europe region. National courts are always free to offer higher levels of protection than that under the Convention as interpreted and applied by the Court.
- National administrative decision-makers are also not legally bound by the Declaration, without further national legislation.
- The Declaration affirms States’ commitment to secure the Convention rights for everyone within their jurisdiction. It affirms that Convention rights are subject to the principle of non-discrimination.
- Migrants and asylum-seekers’ legal rights under the Convention, other international law, and national law remain unchanged by the Declaration.
- Nevertheless, there is a risk that the Declaration will be used by some governments to press for more restrictive interpretations of the Convention rights by the Court and by national courts. These issues of interpretation will be argued in court on a case-by-case basis.
- There is also a risk that governments may enact legislation, or develop regulations or policy guidance, inspired by their interpretation of the Declaration, in a way that limits migrants’ rights.
- Importantly, the Declaration affirms the absolute prohibition on torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Article 3 ECHR.
- However, it is concerning that the Declaration takes a restrictive view of Article 3’s application to expulsion in several respects.
- It emphasises the high threshold for establishing the minimum level of severity needed to violate Article 3 and states that this should be applied so as to avoid “unnecessary constraints” on expulsion or extradition of foreign nationals.
- The Declaration states that national courts and authorities may benefit from “further guidance” on aspect of Article 3’s application in expulsion cases, without making clear that it is the Court that provides this guidance in its caselaw.
- It is also concerning that the Declaration advises national courts to exercise caution when applying Court standards concerning healthcare in Council of Europe Member States, to assessments of the adequacy of healthcare in non-Council of Europe States in expulsion or extradition cases. These provisions cannot be considered to amount to instructions to national courts, which must be independent of the executive.
- The Declaration favours a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the right to family life under Article 8 ECHR in cases of expulsion or extradition, in particular where national security or public order interests are in issue.
- It notes that the Court tends to leave a wide margin of appreciation should apply to Article 8 in such expulsion or extradition cases, and that the Court should “fully and clearly explain its reasons” for departing from the decision of the national authorities in such cases.
- ENNHRI will monitor and consider intervening in relevant Article 8 cases before the Court in which the Declaration may be cited. NHRIs can have a role in monitoring and possibly intervening in Article 8 expulsion and extradition cases in the national courts.
- The Declaration does not have immediate implications for procedural rights in migration and asylum. It affirms that procedures must be “fair, clear, predictable and timely” and allow for effective remedies and judicial oversight.
- However, within these limits, it sends a signal that states intend to “step up operational cooperation to prevent irregular migration and promote returns” and notes the need for further intergovernmental co-operation and guidance on taking decisions in large volumes of migration cases.
- The Declaration’s emphasis on the special nature of situations where migration is instrumentalised by “hostile” states or other actors could also risk diminished procedural rights for migrants in these situations. However, the Declaration affirms that such migrants retain their Convention and other European and international law rights.
- Although the Declaration endorses possible resort to “return hubs”, which often lead to lesser procedural rights for those facing expulsion, it emphasises the need for fair as well as efficient procedures in returns of persons found not to be in need of international protection.
How could the Declaration affect courts and decision-making?
- The Declaration reaffirms States’ support for the independence of the Court and its important role and reiterates their commitment to the right of individual petition to the Court. However, it is concerning that on some issues the Declaration appears to advocate for the Court to develop its caselaw in particular ways.
- The Declaration also emphasises the doctrine of subsidiarity (a long-standing concept developed by the Court by which states have the primary responsibility to protect the Convention rights, subject to the review of the Court) and the wide margin of appreciation which the Court accords to national authorities in national security matters.
- The Court may take note of the Declaration in relevant judgments, as it takes note of other non-binding instruments.
- Governments are likely to cite the Declaration in legal arguments before the Court, and in some cases may cite the Declaration to press for more restrictive interpretations of the Convention rights.
- The independence of the Court means that it does not have to adopt the same interpretations of the Convention rights and caselaw as those set out in the Declaration.
- The Declaration is likely to be cited in legal arguments before national courts and may be considered as an aid to interpretation of the Convention, alongside the caselaw of the Court and other standards.
- Unfortunately, on some points, the Declaration appears to press national courts to take a particular approach in applying the Convention.
- National courts retain their independence and need not adopt the same understanding of the Convention rights or caselaw as those set out in the Declaration. They are free to apply a higher standard of human rights protection than that applying under the Convention.
What happens next?
- The Declaration does not require any follow up measures to be taken at national level, although some states may choose to introduce legislation, regulations or policy guidance to implement its recommendations.
- The Declaration calls for strengthening of national implementation measures, capacity building and co-operation amongst Member States and other stakeholders on human rights and migration.
- At Council of Europe level, the Declaration calls for an appropriate intergovernmental committee to be established to consider how to enhance communication about the Convention system and counter misinformation about the Court’s caselaw.
- It is welcome that the Declaration specifically acknowledges the role of NHRIs in monitoring Member States’ compliance with the Convention and with the Court’s caselaw.
- ENNHRI and European NHRIs can contribute to and inform national and European level debates on the Declaration and continue to advocate against any dilution of protection of the Convention rights of migrants or any threat to the independence of the Court.
- ENNHRI can monitor any developments following from the Declaration at the Council of Europe, including in cases before the Court, and consider intervening as a third party in relevant Court cases.
- ENNHRI could also engage in the Council of Europe Committee instructed to follow up on the Declaration.
- At a national level, NHRIs are well placed to monitor national developments, including any national responses to the Declaration’s calls for “guidance” to be provided to national authorities and courts, and where national systems allow this, may intervene as a third party before the national courts in cases where the Declaration is likely to be raised by the parties.
- ENNHRI and European NHRIs can also have a role in clarifying international standards and safeguards on the issues addressed in the Declaration, including for example on protection of non-refoulement under Article 3, and on the use of diplomatic assurances against torture.
- ENNHRI and NHRIs can have a role in supporting effective national implementation of the Convention in the field of migration and asylum, including through capacity building and awareness raising.
- They can support and engage in any enhanced dialogue between European and national courts on this issue.
- ENNHRI can continue to facilitate exchange between members for peer support and learning for responding to the ongoing developments on migration and human rights in Europe.
Read and download the Q&A as a PDF.
